Petition: preserve our street trees

[kitwhitfield]

Southwark Council has a new policy about tree planting: that no trees are to be planted on pavements less than 2.1m wide, excluding the kerb. That is, as you'll see if you take your tape measure outside, a pretty wide pavement; most of our residential streets are narrower.

Many of those streets already have trees on them. These trees are beloved parts of the neighbourhood: they freshen the environment, add beauty through the seasons, and make London feel a better place for people to live and thrive.

The trouble is, Southwark's policy means that if any of these much-loved trees get damaged, vandalised or diseased, the Council is now simply cutting them down, rooting them out and paving over where they used to be, leaving behind a sadder, duller street.

It's one thing to say that you won't plant new trees - though many of us would be happy to see more trees even in narrow streets - but quite another to say you won't replace old ones that were seen as a popular adornment, not a nuisance, by the people who actually lived in the area.

We love these trees, and when they die, we mourn them. Refusing to replace them doesn't make the neighbourhoods more convenient: it impoverishes them, and probably decreases the value of our property as well.

Everyone who wants trees preserved, please sign this petition to the Council to change their policy.

https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/preserve-southwark-s-street-trees?source=facebook-share-button&time=1445154823

[macutd]

why does the petition have to have?

"By submitting information you are agreeing to 38 Degrees keeping you informed about campaigns"

can't you just sign a petition!!!!

[kitwhitfield]

Sorry about that, I don't think there's anything I can do. You can probably undo the effect by flagging their e-mails as spam; that way they ought to go straight into your filter. Hope you'll still sign it, though!

[KidKruger]

My next door neighbour recently had a tree removed from outside on the pavement.

Pavement is about 1.2m wide, his yard is about 1.3m deep.

Tree was planted like 16yrs ago, nobody was asked. After 5yrs the pavement was lifting all around the tree and neighbours front yard wall was starting to lean - council said nothing to do with tree. After 8 yrs the wall was leaning enough to reduce usable space in front yard and council, although they had by now replaced / levelled pavement which was lifting again, said nothing to do with tree.

After legal threats tree was removed.

Why anybody would want to plant a tree that grows higher than a 3-storey building so close to a house bewilders me.

I can see a potential argument where there are properties with proper front gardens, but 3 metres away from a house is just stoopid.

[kitwhitfield]

I'm sure some trees can be a nuisance, but we're talking about trees that people want replaced here. A blanket rule that they can't be replaced even if the neighbourhood wants them seems equally unreasonable.

[DulwichFox]

When trees mature they do indeed damage nearby walls and buildings and are a prime cause of subsidence

and consequent buildings insurance claims.

Damage to pavements also cause a serious trip hazard. Ask any runner / jogger.

Also large trees shedding leaves block drains and even peoples gutters..

Also dogs will poo in any pile of leaves.. Nasty when children love to run through a pile of leaves.. It's fun.

So there has to be a balance.. Some streets are not suited to trees..

DulwichFox

[Saffron]

http://www.treesforcities.org/about-us/information-resources/benefits-of-urban-trees/

[dogcatdog]

Joke thread is construct of fail.